


What's wrong with Spectre?

by Paralelsky



Category: James Bond (Craig movies), James Bond (Movies), SPECTRE (2015), Skyfall (2012) - Fandom
Genre: Fix-It, Personal point of view, rant
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-11-29
Updated: 2015-11-29
Packaged: 2018-05-04 00:45:05
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,261
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/5313566
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Paralelsky/pseuds/Paralelsky
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>What's wrong with Spectre?</p>
<p>You see, I really wanted to love this movie, but to me it just missed the mark. So here is where I'm trying to sort my feelings about it.</p>
            </blockquote>





	What's wrong with Spectre?

Hello everyone,

I’m writing this, not even sure that I will post it because I want to sort my thoughts and feelings about Spectre. This is a personal analysis of the movie, so if that’s not your cup of tea, don’t read any further.

You see, I really wanted to love this movie. Coming off the high that was Skyfall, and the truly incredible fandom that was created in its wake, I was hoping that Spectre will be at least as equally entertaining as its predecessor. Except it wasn’t. As a friend of mine put it when we left the cinema: “It started off strong, and then it just lost its legs until its rather pathetic ending.”

And I agree with the sentiment.

It’s not just the usual portrayal of women in it that I find dissatisfying. Although Bond movies have a reputation for being quite misogynistic, having a strong female character such as Judy Dench’s M was somewhat balancing that. But having her killed in Skyfall, turned MI6 into the old boy’s club that it was in the older movies, where women were nothing more than eye and arm candy and plot devices. Even Eve, who was introduced as a good field agent (shooting Bond notwithstanding), was now reduced to playing errand girl and secretary (even in her ‘real’ life). As for Bond’s love interests in the movie, well we all know that Bond movies have a recipe for that: two Bond girls per movie, the one that gets seduced and abandoned, and the one that is a sexy fighter who gets a bit of action. Even Skyfall had it, but after 24 movies, it gets a little bit stale. So why not shake things up? Cut one and make it more meaningful from the beginning? Casino Royal dared to do it (for a bit), and people still remember it because of that.

Then, there are the glaring plot holes. Here we are presented with an organization so big and diverse that they control international politics and countries, yet when their leader needs help, there are no thugs to be found to come to his rescue. They are under the control of a paper-thin and powerless villain that has almost no substance. Motivation, what motivation? He is jealous at James so in turn kills his own father, and then creates this whole organization to make Bond’s life miserable? Please. Also, where are the canon-fodder guys? I mean if I had the money and the means this guy had, I would have hired a freaking army to hunt down James Bond and make sure he stays down. And the torture? Unnecessary. Just shoot the spy. I mean, did no one read the Evil Overlord List anymore?

Second, the acting. Daniel Craig is tired; I get it. James Bond is tired; that’s more than visible every time the spy goes mechanically through the motion of fighting, bantering and fucking his way in and out of troubles. In fact, the only times when Bond shows a hint o real emotion is when he is speaking with Q, and that’s not because my shipper mind wants to see that. Just watch the movie and you’ll see that easily the most enjoyable scenes have the two of them in them.

Which brings me to the dilemma that is Madeleine Swann. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against a strong female character, capable of keeping up with James bloody Bond, but Dr. Swann just isn’t necessary to the plot. Let me explain myself better.

You see, I’m mostly a self-taught writer, who only writes because I love reading and books so damn much. But, the more I wrote, the more I realized that there were some rules to good writing and storytelling that would make my hobby that much more enjoyable and the result better. And one of the things I’ve learned while reading on how to write better stories, is that sometimes you need to let go/ write off characters that add nothing to the plot. In fact, if the action can be believably done by a character that is already written in the story, you should not invent a new one to do it.

And Dr. Swann truly is unnecessary. Let’s start with her introduction. She’s in because she can give Bond access to l’Americaine and to name the secret organization. But Mr. White (her dying father) had already mentioned the l’Americaine, and the desire for revenge against the organization that killed him could have given him the incentive to spill the beans to Bond just as well as the desire to protect his daughter. But you know who could have helped Bond find and put together all the pieces of the puzzle? And who was also conveniently on location? Q, that’s who. Q, poor underused Q. I love, no, _we_ love the Quartermaster as evidenced by the thousands of fics that have sprung after Skyfall. But you know who else loves the Quartermaster? I’ll give you a hint: actually acts in the scenes they have together, cracks a smile and says with absolute certainty, even in the face of someone else’s doubt: “He always comes through.” That’s right, Bond does. So why not use that to make the movie a lot more intense?

Second, we have Dr. Swann’s near kidnapping. Which, granted made for a really good action scene, except that parallel to it we had Q’s almost kidnapping as well. Had the writers made that successful, wouldn’t Bond have a much better reason to search for clues and eventually storm the hideout in the desert? And there, after shooting everyone and scaring off Oberhauser, just to find a brainwashed Q, or a barely holding on Q, to escape together just in time to come back to London where they have to stop the 9 Eyes system from going on-line? I don’t know about you, but that would have made for much more suspenseful storytelling.

Thirdly, the scene where she tells Bond she can’t live in the shadows and they part ways. Believe it, or not, the audience in the theater was actually sighing with relief at that point, as their interaction so far just seemed stretched. Her “I love you” fell flat, and there was no building up to it, and her interactions with Bond up to that point were almost mechanic.

Fourth, having Bond choose between MI6 and a woman. WHAT? Didn’t we all go down that road before, only to have it explode spectacularly in our face? Yes, Vesper, I’m talking about you.

Fifth, the end when he comes back to Q branch for a car. Now that’s slightly redeemable since we know, and he knows, that nothing comes out Q branch without the Quartermaster being able to track it down. So in a way, having Bond coming back for a car was telling us that he’ll be around to call if things go boom again. Which just make me question what was he doing leaving in the first place?

So, here it is. Quite disjointed and most likely more of a rant than anything else, but I’m already feeling much better for putting all of this down in writing. Hopefully, now I can go and read my fix-it James Bond stories in a much more pleasant frame of mind.

On a side note, this movie did answer the never asked question: Who would win in a showdown between Lord Voldemort and Professor Moriarty? Well, we all knew that Moriarty was destined to fall. :)

Hugs all around,

Paralelsky


End file.
